But as you can see he doesn't actually address the center of the controversy -- his claim that if women are really raped ("legitimate rape") they have biological defenses that prevent conception.

From a messaging perspective, his staff clearly wants to blow past the whole with a generic statement of good faith. (Because really, what's he (or they) going to say? 'I believe this completely crazy theory that women's bodies reject sperm from men they don't consent to sex with but now that everyone's freaking out I realize it must not be true'?) He doesn't disavow the original statement at all. Which leaves the obvious question unaddressed: does Akin really believe that women have an innate defense against pregnancy if they don't consent to intercourse?